Demanding that atheists justify their ethics, when the evidence is that they're as ethical as anybody else, always struck me as stupid thinking.

Believing that one can't have an ethic if it is not dictated by an higher power is not even stupid thinking, that's non-thinking. Can't those guys know by themselves what is right or wrong? That's scary.

That the same people tend to be global warming deniers, who apparently don't giva a sh*t about their children as long as environmental welfare is not mentioned in the scripture, is even more frightening. And they accuse others of being amoral...

Demanding that atheists justify their ethics, when the evidence is that they're as ethical as anybody else, always struck me as stupid thinking.

Believing that one can't have an ethic if it is not dictated by an higher power is not even stupid thinking, that's non-thinking. Can't those guys know by themselves what is right or wrong? That's scary.

That the same people tend to be global warming deniers, who apparently don't giva a sh*t about their children as long as environmental welfare is not mentioned in the scripture, is even more frightening. And they accuse others of being amoral...

They disgust me, really. :(

Oh you mean Ethics, like what is right and wrong and the difference between them, yes?

When they buy the big lie, no truth can survive.

Wish You were here Pink Floyd.

So, so you think you can tell Heaven from HÄll,blue skies from pain.Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?A smile from a veil?Do you think you can tell?And did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees?Hot air for a cool breeze?Cold comfort for change?And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?How I wish, how I wish you were here.We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year,Running over the same old ground. What have we found? The same old fears.Wish you were here.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Demanding that atheists justify their ethics, when the evidence is that they're as ethical as anybody else, always struck me as stupid thinking. A while ago, scientists didn't know how bumblebees flew. The proper response wasn't to interrogate bumblebees and demand they can prove they can fly. They can. The proper response was to realize your notions of aerodynamics are inadequate.

More: the entire discussion is premised upon an uncritical acceptance of the notion that religious ethics are themselves motivated and justified by the "grounds" cited by the religious themselves. From where I sit, those grounds are cultural inventions and, often, collectively held fictions that have been built atop the genuine causes for "religious" ethics: a capacity for empathy, deep social mind, social participation and helping behavior with origins in human evolutionary history.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

I am especially optimistic just now because of a seminal discovery that was made recently by comparing genomes of different species... But the same patch appears grossly modified with eighteen mutations in the human genome, which means that it must have changed its function in the last six million years from the common ancestor of chimps and humans to modern humans... It is likely that the rapid evolution of HAR1 has something to do with the rapid evolution of the human brain during the last six million years.

HAR1 has a sequence-length of 118, and of 18 mutations, just 8 are non-synonymous. It codes for RNA and is active during embryonic development.

I guess that settles it then. According to a great, respected, accomplished scientist, humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, and the critical difference is explained by evolutionary mechanisms.

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

I guess that settles it then. According to a great, respected, accomplished scientist, humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, and the critical difference is explained by evolutionary mechanisms.

POW!

And why not include this (redacted from your quote): †

Quote

Dyson: "David Haussler and his colleagues at UC Santa Cruz discovered a small patch of DNA which they call HAR1, short for Human Accelerated Region 1. This patch appears to be strictly conserved in the genomes of mouse, rat, chicken and chimpanzee, which means that it must have been performing an essential function that was unchanged for about three hundred million years from the last common ancestor of birds and mammals until today."

Got that U-Dudes? "...about three hundred million years from the last common ancestor of birds and mammals.."

I guess that settles it then. According to a great, respected, accomplished scientist, mammals share a common ancestor with birds.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

I don't think DT cares too much what Billy's barnacles think as far as common descent goes, he just knows they †are votes in the bag for the glorious fatherland and the sacred eternal flame of Exxon.

Freeman is almost too good to be true for DT. The holy trinity of Templeton winner, Global Meltdown denier and REBEL.

Maybe DT should find out if Dyson wouldn't have sex with an Inuit and has a direct line to the local fuzz on his chainsaw, that would be like The Last Tango in Paris for him.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

His primary cite indicates that "Photosynthetic complexes are exquisitely tuned to capture solar light efficiently." Tuning is making small adjustments in response to feedback, a standard evolutionary mechanism.

Anyway, though photosynthesis quite efficiently transfers quanta of energy to the plant's chemical factories, chlorophyll reflects much of the green light. (In some plants, carotenes absorb a portion of this energy and transfer it to the chlorophyll.) The process of making sugars for long-term energy storage is only about 1/3 efficient. Animals can access only a few percent after the plant has used its share for its own metabolism. Take out more energy for the cow, the meat factory, the truck, the refrigerator, and the guy flipping the burgers.

Chlorophyll may not absorb green light, but it is nonetheless more efficient than competing photosynthetic systems, such as retinals. Green plants may have originally evolved to compete with green-absorbing (purple) photosynthetic organisms.

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

Demanding that atheists justify their ethics, when the evidence is that they're as ethical as anybody else, always struck me as stupid thinking.

Believing that one can't have an ethic if it is not dictated by an higher power is not even stupid thinking, that's non-thinking. Can't those guys know by themselves what is right or wrong? That's scary.

That the same people tend to be global warming deniers, who apparently don't giva a sh*t about their children as long as environmental welfare is not mentioned in the scripture, is even more frightening. And they accuse others of being amoral...

They disgust me, really.

It just occurred to me right now that they reject the reality of good atheists behaving charitably in the same manner that they reject the reality of evolution. They keep interrogating reality, saying that it must be different than how it really is, instead of just accepting reality as it presents itself. So there's my answer, I guess, about why they have this attitude. They are waging a war against That Which Is in order to impose that which they think should be. Wow, UDudes, good luck with the world.

And yes, the whole global warming denial is nothing but selfishness, so they should talk.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Mentok really pulls out all the stops. I have barely scratched the surface of the misunderstandings in his single comment. He clearly has no idea about the Theory of Evolution he is so committed to overturning.

Color is a quantum property of matter, how it interacts with photons, and how different organisms perceive light. You are being human-centric. If you were color-blind or nocturnal or lived in the deep ocean, you wouldn't say that. If you were a dog, you would be filled with wonderment at all the smells associated with feces.

HAMLET: Not where he eats, but where he is eaten: a certainconvocation of politic worms are e'en at him. Yourworm is your only emperor for diet: we fat allcreatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves formaggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is butvariable service, two dishes, but to one table:that's the end.

KING CLAUDIUS: Alas, alas!

HAMLET: A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of aking, and cat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.

KING CLAUDIUS: What dost you mean by this?

HAMLET: Nothing but to show you how a king may go aprogress through the guts of a beggar.

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

Demanding that atheists justify their ethics, when the evidence is that they're as ethical as anybody else, always struck me as stupid thinking. A while ago, scientists didn't know how bumblebees flew. The proper response wasn't to interrogate bumblebees and demand they can prove they can fly. They can. The proper response was to realize your notions of aerodynamics are inadequate.

More: the entire discussion is premised upon an uncritical acceptance of the notion that religious ethics are themselves motivated and justified by the "grounds" cited by the religious themselves. From where I sit, those grounds are cultural inventions and, often, collectively held fictions that have been built atop the genuine causes for "religious" ethics: a capacity for empathy, deep social mind, social participation and helping behavior with origins in human evolutionary history.

It's funny that those who say that atheism leads to relativism, or outright nihilism, also practice their own form of ethical relativism. The old war vs. abortion in terms of "pro-life" is what comes to mind in this case. People who say they are pro-life for religious reasons will also say they are pro-war for certain other religious reasons.

Why is it that the food which humans need to survive doesnít taste bad?

That statement is a real winner right there.

Why is it that turds, something humans shouldn't eat, smell so terrible? Why is it that fire, which humans shouldn't touch, hurts when you touch it? Why is it that sex, something humans should do for the survival of the species, feel so good?

A better question might be: Why is it that common sense, which helps a human get through life, is so lacking in certain IDiots?

Why is it that the food which humans need to survive doesnít taste bad?

That statement is a real winner right there.

Why is it that turds, something humans shouldn't eat, smell so terrible? Why is it that fire, which humans shouldn't touch, hurts when you touch it? Why is it that sex, something humans should do for the survival of the species, feel so good?

A better question might be: Why is it that common sense, which helps a human get through life, is so lacking in certain IDiots?

If food that we need to survive (as opposed to food, like McDonald's, that keeps us alive but is bad for us) smells so good, why is there a multi-gazillion dollar industry out there that markets "nutritious" processed food that smells and tastes good? Why are Americans so dang obese if the food that we need to survive smells (and tastes) so good? It doesn't taste good. I'll bet the UDudes makes jokes all the time about "rabbit food" (salad). Good food doesn't taste good. Fat and sugar taste good. Fat and sugar were just fine for Homo erectus but it's crappy for us, and for heaven's sake even the mainstream media talks about how we didn't evolve to eat the junk that we eat today. Geez, mentok, what do you snack on - carrot sticks? Do they taste better than corn chips?

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Zachriel, the fun with the type of theologists you just quoted is their strange sense of seeing poetry and beauty in nature. I understand that and I even find them touching.

What I don't understand is the fact that, for them, nature will lose its poetical beauty if this beauty is explained by natural laws. i.e: if nature is so beautiful (even for humans that are part of it), it can't just be natural.That's a complete nonsense.

And the same people would prefer a natural diamond over an artificial, even if both look the same. Go figure.

When Iíve brought up the design attributes of a banana, the replies have been that it had tough seeds, was small and hard to digest, and that itís only as good as it is through manís genetic engineering. I suspect that if it was sub-optimal at one time, it was still eaten, and must have contained within its genome the features you see in todayís asexual version. So did man design it? Popycock.

I see. So we have one for "artificial selection is not ID." I hope Dembski doesn't get wind of that. Of course Dembski gets all kinds of wind he doesn't know how to deal with.

Just for the UD people that come over here, lets reword that a bit.

When Iíve brought up the design attributes of an artificially evolved enzyme, the replies have been that it once was inefficient and not very selective, and that itís only as good as it is through manís genetic engineering. I suspect that if it was sub-optimal at one time, it still performed a function, and must have contained within it some of the features you see in the engineered version. So did man design it? Popycock.

Why is it that sex, something humans should do for the survival of the species, feel so good?

IN YOUR CASE, SEX IS NOT DONE FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES, HOMO. † -dt

(more seriously, "survival of the species" was a common misconception of some early evolutionists. "Survival of the lineage" is more correct. You can dig up the topic about the different levels of selection, started by Sir_T, if you want to discuss this) †;)

Note: For your own peace of mind, try to avoid acting astonished at the number of grey eminences that have bobbled above a pew for some fifty or sixty years without developing a Christian mind. They are perfectly happy to make major decisions without any such mind. Itís mostly not even their fault. For decades, clergy of many denominations have functioned as therapists and social workers, not spiritual directors - and the results show.)

Hey! Other theists! Can you believe that there are people who have never developed a Christian mind? But shhh! Don't act surprised around them! We all know that other languages/religions/cultures are not supposed to happen. But we've got to...what's that you say? You're a theist who's not a Christian? You're wondering why I'm writing this letter to you? Well, uh...well...

Denyse O'Leary, aka little Nell from the country. Grow up.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

I have logged on to UD and have been able to make comments. None of my comments so far have been deleted, but I wonder if that will change after I left this one at the bottom of the "Thinking Christian" post. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-116779

Quote

Well, all of this is fine and good, but what does it have to do with intelligent design?

I guess to really accept intelligent design, you must first use your Christian mind, and not your secular, atheist, materialist (Satanic) one.

I have logged on to UD and have been able to make comments. None of my comments so far have been deleted, but I wonder if that will change after I left this one at the bottom of the "Thinking Christian" post. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-116779

Quote

Well, all of this is fine and good, but what does it have to do with intelligent design?

I guess to really accept intelligent design, you must first use your Christian mind, and not your secular, atheist, materialist (Satanic) one.

Maybe that's the answer.

The reply to your post is most amusing:

Quote

Oh you donít know what this has to do with ID? If this is really the case, I would advise you to first go and read some basic stuff about ID theory. Maybe you also want to check out the overwhelming evidence webside where more elementary concepts are discussed than here (overwhelming evidence= mostly ID interested students; this side= mostly ID scientists).Hope I could help.

Is that the site where the first thing you see is a fart animation? Is that what he means by elemental? The wind element? :p Obviously ErnstMayer has never been to the site, or he would know nothing of the sort happens.

I guess that settles it then. According to a great, respected, accomplished scientist, humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, and the critical difference is explained by evolutionary mechanisms.

POW!

And why not include this (redacted from your quote): † † † † †

Quote

Dyson: "David Haussler and his colleagues at UC Santa Cruz discovered a small patch of DNA which they call HAR1, short for Human Accelerated Region 1. This patch appears to be strictly conserved in the genomes of mouse, rat, chicken and chimpanzee, which means that it must have been performing an essential function that was unchanged for about three hundred million years from the last common ancestor of birds and mammals until today."

Got that U-Dudes? "...about three hundred million years from the last common ancestor of birds and mammals.."

I guess that settles it then. According to a great, respected, accomplished scientist, mammals share a common ancestor with birds.

So Darwinian evolution only applies for three billion years. Before that, "a golden age of pre-Darwinian life" (referring to Woese's hypothesis). At least according to a "great, respected, accomplished scientist".

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

Why is it that the food which humans need to survive doesnít taste bad?

Why is it that the dung which dung beetles need to survive doesn't taste bad to them?

Actually I've got a little extra understanding of this. When I was a little kid I nearly died from being fed peanuts they didn't know I was allergic to. Throat closed up, the whole deal. And my brain did some kind of rewiring trick, and whatever you guys taste in peanut butter, I don't taste it. I have no idea what peanuts and peanut butter taste like to those of you who like it, because my brain reprogrammed the taste. Peanuts taste like nothing except pain and itchyness to me. I can't detect anything else. People tell me they taste great, I know people who love them, but I can't taste it whatsoever. The circuits associated with those flavors have been reconfigured. Once a year or so I accidently bite into something with peanuts and the taste is something like acid and itchiness.

Why is it that the food which humans need to survive doesnít taste bad?

Why is it that the dung which dung beetles need to survive doesn't taste bad to them?

Actually I've got a little extra understanding of this. When I was a little kid I nearly died from being fed peanuts they didn't know I was allergic to. Throat closed up, the whole deal. And my brain did some kind of rewiring trick, and whatever you guys taste in peanut butter, I don't taste it. I have no idea what peanuts and peanut butter taste like to those of you who like it, because my brain reprogrammed the taste. Peanuts taste like nothing except pain and itchyness to me. I can't detect anything else. People tell me they taste great, I know people who love them, but I can't taste it whatsoever. The circuits associated with those flavors have been reconfigured. Once a year or so I accidently bite into something with peanuts and the taste is something like acid and itchiness.

Well there's something we have in common. For me, there's something in some chocolate that tastes like peanuts too... that "you shouldn't be eating this" taste. But I definitely don't actually have the physical reaction to it. Ever had that happen?

--------------"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Well there's something we have in common. For me, there's something in some chocolate that tastes like peanuts too... that "you shouldn't be eating this" taste. But I definitely don't actually have the physical reaction to it. Ever had that happen?

No, not to chocolate, which never fails to be yummy. The only other thing that provokes that itchy taste are certain kinds of hard cheese. I don't know what kinds off hand, but a small percentage of them have a real annoying itchiness to the tongue.